Wednesday, December 14, 2011

There is an intriguing "He said/She said" brewing in cyberspace, and in this instance the LDS Church is playing the part of the denier. As for who is actually telling the truth in this matter -well, you can decide for yourself. I'll just tell you what I think.

"A fellow veteran contacted me concerning a new and disturbing development. He had been utilizing a Mormon cannery near his home to purchase bulk food supplies. The man that manages the facility relayed to him that federal agents had visited the facility and demanded a list of individuals that had been purchasing bulk food. The Manager informed the agents that the facility kept no such records and that all transactions were conducted on a cash and carry basis. The agents pressed for any record of personal checks, credit card transactions, etc., but the manager could provide no such record. The agents appeared to become very agitated and after several minutes of questioning finally left with no information."

Now here is a key point: Cardwell concludes by saying "I contacted the manager and personally confirmed this information."

This report went viral on alternative news sites and created quite a bit of consternation among Mormons and non-Mormons alike. Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes gave an interview on the Alex Jones show about this and similarly alarming federal encroachments occuring around the country. Church headquarters was flooded with calls from Members wanting to know what our leaders were planning to do about this invasive encroachment on church sovereignty.

And then suddenly...the cannery director recanted his story. There had been no visit from federal agents after all, he insisted. In fact, suddenly the good brother could not even recall having spoken to anyone from Oath Keepers about it. Sargeant Cardwell's source had turned into Sargeant Schultz. The manager knew nothing. Nuuuh-THING!

It didn't take long before bloggers everywhere declared the incident had been "a complete and total fabrication." How did they know this? They called the cannery and no one answered, or they heard from someone else who said they heard it was a hoax, proof positive for some people that the whole thing was made up.

It didn't help that some websites that ran with the story changed the headline, distorting a simple visit by two agents into some massive "federal raid." Among the hub-bub, it was nearly impossible to come to an intelligent conclusion about what happened because the manager by now had clammed up. The corporate Church's public relations department issued a terse denial, and that was that.

With their source no longer willing to go on the record, OathKeepers did the honorable thing and pulled the story. Ironically, this was further proof to the cynics that the story had been retracted. But that's not what Oath Keepers was saying. This is:

"We have pulled this story about the Mormon cannery being visited by federal agents because the source of the information at the cannery is now denying that he ever told us that event occurred.

"From now on, we will NOT post any such story based on what we are told by other people unless, and until, they are willing to go on video or at least on an audio recording with their info. That way, in case someone starts to crumble under the public attention or other pressures, and wants to deny what they told us, we have video or audio proof.

"We get all kinds of scary intel, all the time, and we rarely pass it on because we don’t have confirming documentation. In this case, we were relying on a confirmed eye witness who is now denying it. We will not do that again without a recording.

"We still welcome such tips, but unless you are willing to go on recorded record, using your name, we will not pass it on to the public, but will instead use it only for our own knowledge and internal analysis among our leadership with the caveat that it is not for public dissemination. Otherwise, we risk having people flake on what they told us, and that makes us look bad. People who send us information often times don’t realize the kind of public attention they may wind up experiencing, or the kinds of pressures they may come under behind the scenes. Another consideration is the real possibility that a person could be threatened with prosecution under the USA PATRIOT ACT of 2001 for making public the fact that they were contacted by Federal agents demanding private records. We need witnesses to be willing to go on recording right up front so they cannot later recant.

"We will always respect the privacy and anonymity of sources, as we have done in this case, but will simply not run such stories in the future without video proof AND someone who is willing to be identified in the story. Anonymous tips will be used only for internal analysis.

"NO SUCH STORY WILL BE POSTED ON THIS SITE AGAIN WITHOUT VIDEO OR AUDIO OF THE EYE WITNESS(S) SO WE CAN PROVE THEY TOLD IT TO US -No matter how urgent or important the information. As far as we are concerned, without such a recording, we will not consider it a real source, but just scuttlebutt.

"Thus, now that we no longer have an eye witness willing to stick with his story, we no longer have a story we feel comfortable having on our site and we have pulled this story so we are not accused of still disseminating it."

(Although pulled from OathKeepers.org, the original post has been cached here. You might want to read it before it's gone for good. You'll note within the piece that Sargeant Cardwell claims to have gone to the cannery and confirmed the story with the manager in person.)

Is The Story Credible? OathKeepers was formed largely as a response from veterans and active duty military personnel who saw a dangerous precedent following hurricane Katrina, when the army was sent door to door in a New Orleans neighborhood that was unaffected by the flooding. News cameras were on hand to record the soldiers pulling citizens from their homes, cuffing them on their front lawns, then ransacking their houses and stealing their weapons. To many observers, the most fearful thugs and looters in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina were the ones sent in by FEMA.

Here is the statement of purpose from the Oath Keepers website:

Oath Keepers is a non-partisan association of currently serving military, reserves, National Guard, veterans, Peace Officers, and Fire Fighters who will fulfill the Oath we swore, with the support of like minded citizens who take an Oath to stand with us, to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, so help us God. Our Oath is to the Constitution.

Our motto is "Not on our watch!"

Are you wondering where the real soldiers are today, the men of honor and integrity? You want true patriots? These are your guys. Men who take their oaths seriously are the ones you want standing between you and tyranny. Conversely, they are the men most feared and despised by corrupt politicians and banker puppets, because they will not allow themselves to be used like Stalin's army or Hitler's Storm Troopers if ordered to turn their guns on their fellow citizens.

It's no wonder Homeland Security classified returning veterans as potential terrorists. Most of these poor saps were told they were being sent overseas to defend America's freedoms, yet when they came home they found many of those freedoms had been stolen in their absence. Soldiers like these are a threat to tyrants, because they are awake. And they are pissed off.

If you want to understand what motivates the men who took the Oath Keeper's pledge, it's not about what they'll stand for, it's what they won't stand for. There is a list of ten important items, and you can see them here.

The Tennessee WaltzThe reason rumors of federal agents asking questions at a Church cannery in Tennessee are so credible is because we know that in Madison County Tennessee last month, as reported on Nashville's News Channel Five, state health officials had been going door to door inquiring about resident's personal food storage. The program was sold as a means of encouraging the populace to be prepared for emergencies, but it clearly was was a program of interrogation to ascertain just who in the area had stockpiles of food, and how much they owned. I reported in greater detail on this "assessment" program just this morning in another venue .

If bureaucrats in Tennessee would go door to door asking prying questions about random people's private stockpiles, how much of a stretch is it to believe the same inquiry could have been made at a Church facility in the same state? Not much of a stretch at all.

I don't believe Sergeant Cardwell made up the story of federal agents making inquiries at the cannery. I know enough about this guy to trust him at his word. So if the cannery manager denied ever saying anything about a visit from the feds, the question is, why? Something or someone must have put the fear in him.

Of course, there's always the possibility that the manager just made it all up when he was chatting with the original member veteran. If so, is it reasonable to believe he would repeat the incident in detail to a total stranger who calls to confirm it for publication? Does this sound like the actions of a responsible Church administrator? I think it is more likely he was relating an actual incident that he himself found to be an incredible overreach of authority, and that he was appalled, as anyone would be, that government agents would show up unannounced at a Church facility fishing for information without so much as a warrant or a reason.

So why the sudden reversal? Why back off the story?

Those of us in the Church know that no one who works for the Church makes these kinds of decisions without receiving instruction from on high. After the story exploded on the net, someone somewhere had to have sat this guy down and told him to ix-nay on the ory-stay. Let's just put this on the shelf, shall we, brother?

So who was it who leaned on him? Was it someone high up in the Church, or someone in government? Or could it have been both?

We know that the egregious piece of legislation known as the Patriot Act includes a gag order provision that prohibits anyone who has been visited by the FBI to talk about that visit to anyone else on penalty of imprisonment. This is, of course, an outrageous prohibition on free speech that cannot stand. Still, though the Patriot Act cannot cancel out the first and fourth amendments to the Constitution, how many American middle managers have the guts or resources to challenge that provision all the way to the supreme court? Far easier and safer for most people to just sit down, shut up, and do as they're told.

What I wonder about is the conversation that took place between the cannery manager and his masters at Church headquarters? If the manager was telling the truth about the visit, why didn't the Church back him up? LDS, Inc pays its lawyers hundreds of millions of dollars a year to defend against all manner of petty nuisance suits. Wouldn't this have been a great opportunity to take a stand against the whore of Babylon herself?

But I guess that's just wishful thinking.

Failing In Our MissionWe have all heard about the threefold mission of the Church:

To proclaim the gospelTo perfect the SaintsTo redeem the dead.

You may not remember this, but there used to be a fourth one: "To put evil underfoot." But that was such a long time ago that after making a cursory search on the internet, I can't even find it referenced anymore.

The mission of the church these days no longer includes putting evil under foot, but instead just rolling over and letting evil have its way. "Don't make waves" has been our unofficial motto ever since we got our fingers burned by the feds back in 1890. Now we prefer to just go along to get along.

As President Hinckley put it when asked about the Mormon Church's reaction to the violent persecution being heaped upon the Branch Davidian Church by the United States government, "We don't get involved with them. If the law chooses to take care of them, that's the law's basic right. We just plow our own furrow and go forward."

In other words, the modern Church of Jesus Christ prefers to remain oblivious to the injustices swirling all around it. We don't just plow our own furrow, we plow it with blinders on. Hinckley's cavalier dismissal of a group of Christians who were murdered by their own government reminds one of the words of Martin Van Buren to Joseph Smith, "Your cause is just, but I can do nothing for you."

We seek in vain for any institutional Church objection when the US government steps out of line, even when that encroachment occurs on our own Church property.

Do I believe the testimony of Oath Keeper's Rand Cardwell over the denial of that anonymous Mormon cannery manager? Yes I do. The only thing I don't know is who got to that guy and convinced him he should forget what he saw and heard with his own eyes and ears? Was it the men in black from Washington D.C, or the men in black from Salt Lake City?

[A note about leaving comments: Many readers have posted as "Anonymous" even though they don't wish to, only because they see no other option. If you don't have a Google, Wordpress, or other username among those listed, you can enter a username in the dropdown box that reads "Name/URL." Put your name in the "Name" box, ignore the request for a URL, and you should be good to go.

I have a pretty firm policy of never censoring or deleting comments,so if your comment does not immediately appear, it probably means it is being held in the spam filter, which seems to lock in arbitrarily on some posts for reasons unknown. If you have submitted a comment and it doesn't immediately show up, give me a nudge at RockWaterman@gmail.com and I'll knock it loose. -Rock] _

There is an intriguing "He said/She said" brewing in cyberspace, and in this instance the LDS Church is playing the part of the denier. As for who is actually telling the truth in this matter -well, you can decide for yourself. I'll just tell you what I think.

"A fellow veteran contacted me concerning a new and disturbing development. He had been utilizing a Mormon cannery near his home to purchase bulk food supplies. The man that manages the facility relayed to him that federal agents had visited the facility and demanded a list of individuals that had been purchasing bulk food. The Manager informed the agents that the facility kept no such records and that all transactions were conducted on a cash and carry basis. The agents pressed for any record of personal checks, credit card transactions, etc., but the manager could provide no such record. The agents appeared to become very agitated and after several minutes of questioning finally left with no information."

Now here is a key point: Cardwell concludes by saying "I contacted the manager and personally confirmed this information."

This report went viral on alternative news sites and created quite a bit of consternation among Mormons and non-Mormons alike. Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes gave an interview on the Alex Jones show about this and similarly alarming federal encroachments occuring around the country. Church headquarters was flooded with calls from Members wanting to know what our leaders were planning to do about this invasive encroachment on church sovereignty.

And then suddenly...the cannery director recanted his story. There had been no visit from federal agents after all, he insisted. In fact, suddenly the good brother could not even recall having spoken to anyone from Oath Keepers about it. Sargeant Cardwell's source had turned into Sargeant Schultz. The manager knew nothing. Nuuuh-THING!

It didn't take long before bloggers everywhere declared the incident had been "a complete and total fabrication." How did they know this? They called the cannery and no one answered, or they heard from someone else who said they heard it was a hoax, proof positive for some people that the whole thing was made up.

It didn't help that some websites that ran with the story changed the headline, distorting a simple visit by two agents into some massive "federal raid." Among the hub-bub, it was nearly impossible to come to an intelligent conclusion about what happened because the manager by now had clammed up. The corporate Church's public relations department issued a terse denial, and that was that.

With their source no longer willing to go on the record, OathKeepers did the honorable thing and pulled the story. Ironically, this was further proof to the cynics that the story had been retracted. But that's not what Oath Keepers was saying. This is:

"We have pulled this story about the Mormon cannery being visited by federal agents because the source of the information at the cannery is now denying that he ever told us that event occurred.

"From now on, we will NOT post any such story based on what we are told by other people unless, and until, they are willing to go on video or at least on an audio recording with their info. That way, in case someone starts to crumble under the public attention or other pressures, and wants to deny what they told us, we have video or audio proof.

"We get all kinds of scary intel, all the time, and we rarely pass it on because we don’t have confirming documentation. In this case, we were relying on a confirmed eye witness who is now denying it. We will not do that again without a recording.

"We still welcome such tips, but unless you are willing to go on recorded record, using your name, we will not pass it on to the public, but will instead use it only for our own knowledge and internal analysis among our leadership with the caveat that it is not for public dissemination. Otherwise, we risk having people flake on what they told us, and that makes us look bad. People who send us information often times don’t realize the kind of public attention they may wind up experiencing, or the kinds of pressures they may come under behind the scenes. Another consideration is the real possibility that a person could be threatened with prosecution under the USA PATRIOT ACT of 2001 for making public the fact that they were contacted by Federal agents demanding private records. We need witnesses to be willing to go on recording right up front so they cannot later recant.

"We will always respect the privacy and anonymity of sources, as we have done in this case, but will simply not run such stories in the future without video proof AND someone who is willing to be identified in the story. Anonymous tips will be used only for internal analysis.

"NO SUCH STORY WILL BE POSTED ON THIS SITE AGAIN WITHOUT VIDEO OR AUDIO OF THE EYE WITNESS(S) SO WE CAN PROVE THEY TOLD IT TO US -No matter how urgent or important the information. As far as we are concerned, without such a recording, we will not consider it a real source, but just scuttlebutt.

"Thus, now that we no longer have an eye witness willing to stick with his story, we no longer have a story we feel comfortable having on our site and we have pulled this story so we are not accused of still disseminating it."

(Although pulled from OathKeepers.org, the original post has been cached here. You might want to read it before it's gone for good. You'll note within the piece that Sargeant Cardwell claims to have gone to the cannery and confirmed the story with the manager in person.)

Is The Story Credible?
OathKeepers was formed largely as a response from veterans and active duty military personnel who saw a dangerous precedent following hurricane Katrina, when the army was sent door to door in a New Orleans neighborhood that was unaffected by the flooding. News cameras were on hand to record the soldiers pulling citizens from their homes, cuffing them on their front lawns, then ransacking their houses and stealing their weapons. To many observers, the most fearful thugs and looters in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina were the ones sent in by FEMA.

Here is the statement of purpose from the Oath Keepers website:

Oath Keepers is a non-partisan association of currently serving military, reserves, National Guard, veterans, Peace Officers, and Fire Fighters who will fulfill the Oath we swore, with the support of like minded citizens who take an Oath to stand with us, to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, so help us God. Our Oath is to the Constitution.

Our motto is "Not on our watch!"

Are you wondering where the real soldiers are today, the men of honor and integrity? You want true patriots? These are your guys. Men who take their oaths seriously are the ones you want standing between you and tyranny. Conversely, they are the men most feared and despised by corrupt politicians and banker puppets, because they will not allow themselves to be used like Stalin's army or Hitler's Storm Troopers if ordered to turn their guns on their fellow citizens.

It's no wonder Homeland Security classified returning veterans as potential terrorists. Most of these poor saps were told they were being sent overseas to defend America's freedoms, yet when they came home they found many of those freedoms had been stolen in their absence. Soldiers like these are a threat to tyrants, because they are awake. And they are pissed off.

If you want to understand what motivates the men who took the Oath Keeper's pledge, it's not about what they'll stand for, it's what they won't stand for. There is a list of ten important items, and you can see them here.

The Tennessee Waltz
The reason rumors of federal agents asking questions at a Church cannery in Tennessee are so credible is because we know that in Madison County Tennessee last month, as reported on Nashville's News Channel Five, state health officials had been going door to door inquiring about resident's personal food storage. The program was sold as a means of encouraging the populace to be prepared for emergencies, but it clearly was was a program of interrogation to ascertain just who in the area had stockpiles of food, and how much they owned. I reported in greater detail on this "assessment" program just this morning in another venue .

If bureaucrats in Tennessee would go door to door asking prying questions about random people's private stockpiles, how much of a stretch is it to believe the same inquiry could have been made at a Church facility in the same state? Not much of a stretch at all.

I don't believe Sergeant Cardwell made up the story of federal agents making inquiries at the cannery. I know enough about this guy to trust him at his word. So if the cannery manager denied ever saying anything about a visit from the feds, the question is, why? Something or someone must have put the fear in him.

Of course, there's always the possibility that the manager just made it all up when he was chatting with the original member veteran. If so, is it reasonable to believe he would repeat the incident in detail to a total stranger who calls to confirm it for publication? Does this sound like the actions of a responsible Church administrator? I think it is more likely he was relating an actual incident that he himself found to be an incredible overreach of authority, and that he was appalled, as anyone would be, that government agents would show up unannounced at a Church facility fishing for information without so much as a warrant or a reason.

So why the sudden reversal? Why back off the story?

Those of us in the Church know that no one who works for the Church makes these kinds of decisions without receiving instruction from on high. After the story exploded on the net, someone somewhere had to have sat this guy down and told him to ix-nay on the ory-stay. Let's just put this on the shelf, shall we, brother?

So who was it who leaned on him? Was it someone high up in the Church, or someone in government? Or could it have been both?

We know that the egregious piece of legislation known as the Patriot Act includes a gag order provision that prohibits anyone who has been visited by the FBI to talk about that visit to anyone else on penalty of imprisonment. This is, of course, an outrageous prohibition on free speech that cannot stand. Still, though the Patriot Act cannot cancel out the first and fourth amendments to the Constitution, how many American middle managers have the guts or resources to challenge that provision all the way to the supreme court? Far easier and safer for most people to just sit down, shut up, and do as they're told.

What I wonder about is the conversation that took place between the cannery manager and his masters at Church headquarters? If the manager was telling the truth about the visit, why didn't the Church back him up? LDS, Inc pays its lawyers hundreds of millions of dollars a year to defend against all manner of petty nuisance suits. Wouldn't this have been a great opportunity to take a stand against the whore of Babylon herself?

But I guess that's just wishful thinking.

Failing In Our Mission
We have all heard about the threefold mission of the Church:

To proclaim the gospel
To perfect the Saints
To redeem the dead.

You may not remember this, but there used to be a fourth one: "To put evil underfoot." But that was such a long time ago that after making a cursory search on the internet, I can't even find it referenced anymore.

The mission of the church these days no longer includes putting evil under foot, but instead just rolling over and letting evil have its way. "Don't make waves" has been our unofficial motto ever since we got our fingers burned by the feds back in 1890. Now we prefer to just go along to get along.

As President Hinckley put it when asked about the Mormon Church's reaction to the violent persecution being heaped upon the Branch Davidian Church by the United States government, "We don't get involved with them. If the law chooses to take care of them, that's the law's basic right. We just plow our own furrow and go forward."

In other words, the modern Church of Jesus Christ prefers to remain oblivious to the injustices swirling all around it. We don't just plow our own furrow, we plow it with blinders on. Hinckley's cavalier dismissal of a group of Christians who were murdered by their own government reminds one of the words of Martin Van Buren to Joseph Smith, "Your cause is just, but I can do nothing for you."

We seek in vain for any institutional Church objection when the US government steps out of line, even when that encroachment occurs on our own Church property.

Do I believe the testimony of Oath Keeper's Rand Cardwell over the denial of that anonymous Mormon cannery manager? Yes I do. The only thing I don't know is who got to that guy and convinced him he should forget what he saw and heard with his own eyes and ears? Was it the men in black from Washington D.C, or the men in black from Salt Lake City?

[A note about leaving comments: Many readers have posted as "Anonymous" even though they don't wish to, only because they see no other option. If you don't have a Google, Wordpress, or other username among those listed, you can enter a username in the dropdown box that reads "Name/URL." Put your name in the "Name" box, ignore the request for a URL, and you should be good to go.

I have a pretty firm policy of never censoring or deleting comments,so if your comment does not immediately appear, it probably means it is being held in the spam filter, which seems to lock in arbitrarily on some posts for reasons unknown. If you have submitted a comment and it doesn't immediately show up, give me a nudge at RockWaterman@gmail.com and I'll knock it loose. -Rock] _

Tuesday, December 13, 2011

Moroni wrote, “Wherefore I know by this thing which thou hast said, that if the Gentiles have not charity, because of our weakness, that thou wilt prove them, and take away their talent, yea, even that which they have received, and give it unto them who shall have more abundantly.” (Ether 12:35)

Did not Nephi warn, “Wo be unto him that is at ease in Zion! Wo be unto him that crieth all is well ... Wo be unto him that saith: We have received, and we need no more.” (2 Nephi 28:25 & 27)

Church members like to think that this scripture applies to the non-Mormons who reject the Book of Mormon, but who is “at ease in Zion”? If we keep in mind the fact that it could only be the Latter-Day Saints that are at ease in Zion, then we must face the fact that the rest of the prophecy applies to them.Of course, the devotee would argue the belief that God will yet reveal many great and important things and believe in modern revelation. Yes, this is true in theory in the Church, but not in practice; for how many times do we hear people in the Church say things like, “Leave the mysteries alone. Do not delve into them.” “We have more than we can handle with what we have.” “Stay with the basics.” “You don’t even know all there is to know about faith yet; why do you want to delve into deeper things?”

Then when one talks about receiving more of the word of God, they will say that it pertains to the future when we are ready, but not now. We forget that, while most are content with the status quo, there are many in the Church and world who are ready for more of the word of God. Anyone who would call the present conference reports modern-day scripture is obviously not prepared for real scripture, for how can the quoting of old scripture be new scripture?

Let us follow Nephi a little further:

“And in fine, wo unto all those who tremble, and are angry because of the truth of God! For behold, he that is built upon the rock receiveth it with gladness; and he that is built upon a sandy foundation trembleth lest he shall fall.” (Verse 28)

This prophecy shall be fulfilled in our day. Many will be angry when they receive the revelations and teachings of real modern prophets and others which are to come, but the righteous will receive them with joy for the time is verily coming when the words of Isaiah will be fulfilled:

“How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him that bringeth good tidings, that publisheth salvation; that saith unto Zion, Thy God reigneth!” (Isa. 52:7)

I would hope to be counted among those who bring you good tidings of good and declare that God does reign and that Zion will yet be built by the power of God. Indeed, since the Church has been driven in the wilderness again, it has almost appeared that God does not reign, for the Church has had to give up many of its basic principles mentioned earlier, but this is because of the folly of man. God does reign over His inner Church and soon it will again come out of the wilderness with great glory and power and after a manner which ye know not.

In the next verse, Nephi repeats his warning:

“Wo be unto him that shall say, We have received the word of God [meaning the Bible and LDS scriptures], and we need no more of the word of God, for we have enough!” (Verse 29)

In practice is this not the cry of the Church today: “We have enough!” If you do not believe it, just try and expound on a deep doctrine or mystery in Sunday School. As I said the excommunication of my nephew and I began with the simple exploration of progression from lower to higher kingdoms.

Nephi ends his chapter with, “Wo be unto the Gentiles saith the Lord of hosts! For notwithstanding I shall lengthen out my arm unto them from day to day, they will deny me; nevertheless I will be merciful unto them, saith the Lord God, if they will repent and come unto me.” (Verse 32)

Do the Latter-Day Saints deny God? Do they deny revelations given by the Spirit of God to various people in and out of the church? Yes, they do because of the mistaken notion that God will only reveal mysteries through the president of the church. If they do not come through him they are to be rejected.

When Jesus was speaking before the multitudes in Jerusalem, he warned them, “Ye are the salt of the earth; but if the salt have lost its savor, wherewith shall it be salted? It is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under the foot of men.” (Matt. 5:13)

What did Jesus mean by this? He told the followers of Moses that they were the salt of the earth. To help us understand a little better let us use the ancient Jews as a correspondence to salt and the earth as a correspondence to a steak. The percentage of the steak that is salt is very small, yet its influence is so strong that it will greatly enhance the flavor of the whole thing. Yet we find that the sea salt that the Jews used, if left to stagnate, will lose its flavoring ability and become completely tasteless. If this were to happen to the salt, who in the world would want to put it on a steak? It would become worthless. The Master would then seek for other salt with taste, for the first salt is, “thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under the foot of men.”

Did the ancient Jews heed this warning? No! They lost their savor and the Master sought for other salt in the Gentiles. Consequently, the Jews were trodden under foot by the Romans and great were their lamentations.

Does the Lord promise members today that they are salt that cannot lose their savor? No, verily we see that the Lord speaks to the Church today the same as He did yesterday: “But inasmuch as they keep not my commandments, and hearken not to observe all my words, the kingdoms of the world shall prevail against them [the Church]. For they were set to be a light unto the world, and to be saviors of men; and inasmuch as they are not saviors of men, they are as salt that has lost its savor, and is thenceforth good for nothing but to be cast out and trodden under foot of men.” (D&C 103:8- 10)

Ask yourself: Has the Church lost its savor? Are they being the saviors of men as required to keep this savor? Some may answer yes, but we forget that the kingdom was set up for the temporal salvation of men as well as the spiritual. Of course, all religions argue that they are the spiritual saviors. Anyone who preaches about Jesus can claim that, but have they followed the course set out by Joseph Smith to be the physical saviors of mankind and preserve the freedoms of the world?

No! The Council of Fifty has been completely abandoned as well as all other efforts to preserve the principles of freedom in the Constitution.

Other groups outside the Church are being much better salt than the LDS are because some of them do not fear the criticism of the world.

Thus the Lord said, “Verily, I say unto you, that after all this and I have caused my people who are of the house of Israel to be smitten and to be afflicted, and to be slain, and to be cast out from among them, and to become hated by them, and to become a hiss and a byword among them -And thus commandeth the Father that I should say unto you: At that day when the Gentiles shall sin against my gospel, and shall be lifted up in the pride of their hearts above all nations, and above all the people of the whole earth, and shall be filled with all manner of lyings, and of deceits, and of mischiefs, and all manner of hypocrisy, and murders, and priestcrafts, and whoredoms, and of secret abominations; and if they shall do all those things, and shall reject the fullness of my gospel, behold, saith the Father, I WILL BRING THE FULLNESS OF MY GOSPEL FROM AMONG THEM.” (3 Nephi 16:9-10)

Have we reached a time that the fullness of the Gospel has been taken from the church?

Before this question can be answered we must ask another question:What is the Fullness of the Gospel?

If we know not what the fullness of the gospel is then we have no way of knowing if it has been taken away or not.

Many members believe the fullness of the Gospel includes all the laws and ordinances of the current church. The Fundamentalists go a step further and claim it includes plural marriage, the united order and other items, and no member has a fullness unless he is incorporating every item introduced by Joseph Smith and Brigham Young.Both of these ideas miss the mark. Is it possible that after all these years and examination of the scriptures that no one has clearly explained what a fullness of the Gospel is?

Perhaps. The scriptures clearly reveal what the fullness of the Gospel is not.

For instance, the Lord said: “And I have sent forth the fulness of my gospel by the hand of my servant Joseph; and in weakness I have blessed him.” (D&C 35:17)

This revelation was given in 1830, long before plural marriage, the United Order, temple work and many other items that both groups of believers maintain is a part of the fullness. Consider this:

“And gave him power from on high, by the means which were before prepared, to translate the Book of Mormon; Which contains a record of a fallen people, and the fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles and to the Jews also.” (D&C 20:8)

Conclusion: The Book of Mormon contains the fullness of the gospel.

And consider this:

“And the angel of the Lord said unto me: Thou hast beheld that the book proceeded forth from the mouth of a Jew; and when it proceeded forth from the mouth of a Jew it contained the fulness of the gospel of the Lord, of whom the twelve apostles bear record; and they bear record according to the truth which is in the Lamb of God.” I Nephi 13:24

Conclusion: The Bible as it was written contains the fullness of the gospel.

Consider this:

“And again, the elders, priests and teachers of this church shall teach the principles of my gospel, which are in the Bible and the Book of Mormon, in which is the fullness of the gospel.” D&C 42:12

Conclusion – both the Bible and the book of Mormon have the fullness of the gospel.

Is the Book of Mormon and the Bible, as a whole, representative of the fullness of the gospel or is it some teaching or principle within them that is the true fullness? Since we are told that a fullness is in both of them, then that which is a fullness must be something which is common to both books.

The next few verses give a clue:

“And they shall observe the covenants and church articles to do them, and these shall be their teachings, as they shall be directed by the Spirit. And the Spirit shall be given unto you by the prayer of faith; and if ye receive not the Spirit ye shall not teach.” (D&C 42:13-14)

How shall the fullness be taught?Answer: By the Spirit, for without the Spirit, the fullness cannot be taught.

A couple sections later we read:

“And when the times of the Gentiles is come in, a light shall break forth among them that sit in darkness, and it shall be the FULNESS of my gospel; But they receive it not; for they perceive not the light, and they turn their hearts from me because of the precepts of men.” (D&C 45:28-29)

Here we are clearly told that the fullness of the gospel came to the Gentiles (those who receive the Book of Mormon) and that this fullness is a “light” which is not perceived, but rejected “because of the precepts of men.”

What is that light? Another clue is given in a revelation where the gospel is actually defined:

“And this is my gospel--repentance and baptism by water, and then cometh the baptism of fire and the Holy Ghost, even the Comforter, which showeth all things, and teaches the peaceable things of the Kingdom. Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on my name, and you shall receive my Spirit, and a blessing so great as you never have known.”(D&C 39:6&10)

In addition to speaking of the fullness of the gospel, the scriptures also speak of “the fullness of time,” “the fullness of the Gentiles,” and “the fullness of the wrath of God.”

Does the “fullness of time” mean that everything in time is included? No. Neither does the fullness of the Gospel imply that all the teachings of the prophets are included.

A fullness implies a maximum quality or attainment. Which of these is greater and brings more fullness of joy:

To have the fire of the Holy Spirit, or to have an office in the church?

To have the Spirit, or to live the United Order?

To have the Spirit, or to have more than one wife?

To have the Spirit, or to visit the temple?

The great mystery which should not be a mystery is this: To have the fullness of the Gospel is to have the fire of the Holy Spirit, the end product of the first and basic principles of the gospel. This is the underlying principle taught in the Bible and Book of Mormon and the reason they are said to contain the fullness.

He who has the Spirit has what?Answer: The power of revelation and thus the current Will of God is manifest to him.

This is the “Rock” upon which the true church of Christ has been, is, and will be built and this is also one of the “stones” the builders rejected.

Is this Rock upon which the church is built anything less than a fullness?Verily no.

Without revelation through the gift of the Holy Spirit, there is no fullness of the Gospel; and since the Church excommunicates those who have claimed to receive the revelation of the Spirit, then we have a church which receives not of the fullness of the gospel as predicted in D&C 45:28-29, previously quoted.

Verily, the Spirit does testify to all: “Come up higher and drink freely of the waters of the Spirit that you may remain always in the fullness of the bosom of the Eternal God, that your work will be a fullness of your potential, being God working in you and speaking to the souls of humanity.”

Copyright J.J. Dewey, used with permission.

[A note from Rock about leaving comments: Many readers have posted as "Anonymous" even though they don't wish to, only because they see no other option. If you don't have a Google, Wordpress, or other username among those listed, you can enter a username in the dropdown box that reads "Name/URL." Put your name in the "Name" box, ignore the request for a URL, and you should be good to go.

I have a pretty firm policy of never censoring or deleting comments,so if your comment does not immediately appear, it probably means it is being held in the spam filter, which seems to lock in arbitrarily on some posts for reasons unknown. If you have submitted a comment and it doesn't immediately show up, give me a nudge at RockWaterman@gmail.com and I'll knock it loose. -Rock]

Moroni wrote, “Wherefore I know by this thing which thou hast said, that if the Gentiles have not charity, because of our weakness, that thou wilt prove them, and take away their talent, yea, even that which they have received, and give it unto them who shall have more abundantly.” (Ether 12:35)

Did not Nephi warn, “Wo be unto him that is at ease in Zion! Wo be unto him that crieth all is well ... Wo be unto him that saith: We have received, and we need no more.” (2 Nephi 28:25 & 27)

Church members like to think that this scripture applies to the non-Mormons who reject the Book of Mormon, but who is “at ease in Zion”? If we keep in mind the fact that it could only be the Latter-Day Saints that are at ease in Zion, then we must face the fact that the rest of the prophecy applies to them.
Of course, the devotee would argue the belief that God will yet reveal many great and important things and believe in modern revelation. Yes, this is true in theory in the Church, but not in practice; for how many times do we hear people in the Church say things like, “Leave the mysteries alone. Do not delve into them.” “We have more than we can handle with what we have.” “Stay with the basics.” “You don’t even know all there is to know about faith yet; why do you want to delve into deeper things?”

Then when one talks about receiving more of the word of God, they will say that it pertains to the future when we are ready, but not now. We forget that, while most are content with the status quo, there are many in the Church and world who are ready for more of the word of God. Anyone who would call the present conference reports modern-day scripture is obviously not prepared for real scripture, for how can the quoting of old scripture be new scripture?

Let us follow Nephi a little further:

“And in fine, wo unto all those who tremble, and are angry because of the truth of God! For behold, he that is built upon the rock receiveth it with gladness; and he that is built upon a sandy foundation trembleth lest he shall fall.” (Verse 28)

This prophecy shall be fulfilled in our day. Many will be angry when they receive the revelations and teachings of real modern prophets and others which are to come, but the righteous will receive them with joy for the time is verily coming when the words of Isaiah will be fulfilled:

“How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him that bringeth good tidings, that publisheth salvation; that saith unto Zion, Thy God reigneth!” (Isa. 52:7)

I would hope to be counted among those who bring you good tidings of good and declare that God does reign and that Zion will yet be built by the power of God. Indeed, since the Church has been driven in the wilderness again, it has almost appeared that God does not reign, for the Church has had to give up many of its basic principles mentioned earlier, but this is because of the folly of man. God does reign over His inner Church and soon it will again come out of the wilderness with great glory and power and after a manner which ye know not.

In the next verse, Nephi repeats his warning:

“Wo be unto him that shall say, We have received the word of God [meaning the Bible and LDS scriptures], and we need no more of the word of God, for we have enough!” (Verse 29)

In practice is this not the cry of the Church today: “We have enough!” If you do not believe it, just try and expound on a deep doctrine or mystery in Sunday School. As I said the excommunication of my nephew and I began with the simple exploration of progression from lower to higher kingdoms.

Nephi ends his chapter with, “Wo be unto the Gentiles saith the Lord of hosts! For notwithstanding I shall lengthen out my arm unto them from day to day, they will deny me; nevertheless I will be merciful unto them, saith the Lord God, if they will repent and come unto me.” (Verse 32)

Do the Latter-Day Saints deny God? Do they deny revelations given by the Spirit of God to various people in and out of the church? Yes, they do because of the mistaken notion that God will only reveal mysteries through the president of the church. If they do not come through him they are to be rejected.

When Jesus was speaking before the multitudes in Jerusalem, he warned them, “Ye are the salt of the earth; but if the salt have lost its savor, wherewith shall it be salted? It is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under the foot of men.” (Matt. 5:13)

What did Jesus mean by this? He told the followers of Moses that they were the salt of the earth. To help us understand a little better let us use the ancient Jews as a correspondence to salt and the earth as a correspondence to a steak. The percentage of the steak that is salt is very small, yet its influence is so strong that it will greatly enhance the flavor of the whole thing. Yet we find that the sea salt that the Jews used, if left to stagnate, will lose its flavoring ability and become completely tasteless. If this were to happen to the salt, who in the world would want to put it on a steak? It would become worthless. The Master would then seek for other salt with taste, for the first salt is, “thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under the foot of men.”

Did the ancient Jews heed this warning? No! They lost their savor and the Master sought for other salt in the Gentiles. Consequently, the Jews were trodden under foot by the Romans and great were their lamentations.

Does the Lord promise members today that they are salt that cannot lose their savor? No, verily we see that the Lord speaks to the Church today the same as He did yesterday: “But inasmuch as they keep not my commandments, and hearken not to observe all my words, the kingdoms of the world shall prevail against them [the Church]. For they were set to be a light unto the world, and to be saviors of men; and inasmuch as they are not saviors of men, they are as salt that has lost its savor, and is thenceforth good for nothing but to be cast out and trodden under foot of men.” (D&C 103:8- 10)

Ask yourself: Has the Church lost its savor? Are they being the saviors of men as required to keep this savor? Some may answer yes, but we forget that the kingdom was set up for the temporal salvation of men as well as the spiritual. Of course, all religions argue that they are the spiritual saviors. Anyone who preaches about Jesus can claim that, but have they followed the course set out by Joseph Smith to be the physical saviors of mankind and preserve the freedoms of the world?

No! The Council of Fifty has been completely abandoned as well as all other efforts to preserve the principles of freedom in the Constitution.

Other groups outside the Church are being much better salt than the LDS are because some of them do not fear the criticism of the world.

Thus the Lord said, “Verily, I say unto you, that after all this and I have caused my people who are of the house of Israel to be smitten and to be afflicted, and to be slain, and to be cast out from among them, and to become hated by them, and to become a hiss and a byword among them -And thus commandeth the Father that I should say unto you: At that day when the Gentiles shall sin against my gospel, and shall be lifted up in the pride of their hearts above all nations, and above all the people of the whole earth, and shall be filled with all manner of lyings, and of deceits, and of mischiefs, and all manner of hypocrisy, and murders, and priestcrafts, and whoredoms, and of secret abominations; and if they shall do all those things, and shall reject the fullness of my gospel, behold, saith the Father, I WILL BRING THE FULLNESS OF MY GOSPEL FROM AMONG THEM.” (3 Nephi 16:9-10)

Have we reached a time that the fullness of the Gospel has been taken from the church?

Before this question can be answered we must ask another question:
What is the Fullness of the Gospel?

If we know not what the fullness of the gospel is then we have no way of knowing if it has been taken away or not.

Many members believe the fullness of the Gospel includes all the laws and ordinances of the current church. The Fundamentalists go a step further and claim it includes plural marriage, the united order and other items, and no member has a fullness unless he is incorporating every item introduced by Joseph Smith and Brigham Young.
Both of these ideas miss the mark. Is it possible that after all these years and examination of the scriptures that no one has clearly explained what a fullness of the Gospel is?

Perhaps. The scriptures clearly reveal what the fullness of the Gospel is not.

For instance, the Lord said: “And I have sent forth the fulness of my gospel by the hand of my servant Joseph; and in weakness I have blessed him.” (D&C 35:17)

This revelation was given in 1830, long before plural marriage, the United Order, temple work and many other items that both groups of believers maintain is a part of the fullness. Consider this:

“And gave him power from on high, by the means which were before prepared, to translate the Book of Mormon; Which contains a record of a fallen people, and the fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles and to the Jews also.” (D&C 20:8)

Conclusion: The Book of Mormon contains the fullness of the gospel.

And consider this:

“And the angel of the Lord said unto me: Thou hast beheld that the book proceeded forth from the mouth of a Jew; and when it proceeded forth from the mouth of a Jew it contained the fulness of the gospel of the Lord, of whom the twelve apostles bear record; and they bear record according to the truth which is in the Lamb of God.” I Nephi 13:24

Conclusion: The Bible as it was written contains the fullness of the gospel.

Consider this:

“And again, the elders, priests and teachers of this church shall teach the principles of my gospel, which are in the Bible and the Book of Mormon, in which is the fullness of the gospel.” D&C 42:12

Conclusion – both the Bible and the book of Mormon have the fullness of the gospel.

Is the Book of Mormon and the Bible, as a whole, representative of the fullness of the gospel or is it some teaching or principle within them that is the true fullness? Since we are told that a fullness is in both of them, then that which is a fullness must be something which is common to both books.

The next few verses give a clue:

“And they shall observe the covenants and church articles to do them, and these shall be their teachings, as they shall be directed by the Spirit. And the Spirit shall be given unto you by the prayer of faith; and if ye receive not the Spirit ye shall not teach.” (D&C 42:13-14)

How shall the fullness be taught?
Answer: By the Spirit, for without the Spirit, the fullness cannot be taught.

A couple sections later we read:

“And when the times of the Gentiles is come in, a light shall break forth among them that sit in darkness, and it shall be the FULNESS of my gospel; But they receive it not; for they perceive not the light, and they turn their hearts from me because of the precepts of men.” (D&C 45:28-29)

Here we are clearly told that the fullness of the gospel came to the Gentiles (those who receive the Book of Mormon) and that this fullness is a “light” which is not perceived, but rejected “because of the precepts of men.”

What is that light? Another clue is given in a revelation where the gospel is actually defined:

“And this is my gospel--repentance and baptism by water, and then cometh the baptism of fire and the Holy Ghost, even the Comforter, which showeth all things, and teaches the peaceable things of the Kingdom. Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on my name, and you shall receive my Spirit, and a blessing so great as you never have known.”(D&C 39:6&10)

In addition to speaking of the fullness of the gospel, the scriptures also speak of “the fullness of time,” “the fullness of the Gentiles,” and “the fullness of the wrath of God.”

Does the “fullness of time” mean that everything in time is included? No. Neither does the fullness of the Gospel imply that all the teachings of the prophets are included.

A fullness implies a maximum quality or attainment. Which of these is greater and brings more fullness of joy:

To have the fire of the Holy Spirit, or to have an office in the church?

To have the Spirit, or to live the United Order?

To have the Spirit, or to have more than one wife?

To have the Spirit, or to visit the temple?

The great mystery which should not be a mystery is this: To have the fullness of the Gospel is to have the fire of the Holy Spirit, the end product of the first and basic principles of the gospel. This is the underlying principle taught in the Bible and Book of Mormon and the reason they are said to contain the fullness.

He who has the Spirit has what?
Answer: The power of revelation and thus the current Will of God is manifest to him.

This is the “Rock” upon which the true church of Christ has been, is, and will be built and this is also one of the “stones” the builders rejected.

Is this Rock upon which the church is built anything less than a fullness?
Verily no.

Without revelation through the gift of the Holy Spirit, there is no fullness of the Gospel; and since the Church excommunicates those who have claimed to receive the revelation of the Spirit, then we have a church which receives not of the fullness of the gospel as predicted in D&C 45:28-29, previously quoted.

Verily, the Spirit does testify to all: “Come up higher and drink freely of the waters of the Spirit that you may remain always in the fullness of the bosom of the Eternal God, that your work will be a fullness of your potential, being God working in you and speaking to the souls of humanity.”

Copyright J.J. Dewey, used with permission.

[A note from Rock about leaving comments: Many readers have posted as "Anonymous" even though they don't wish to, only because they see no other option. If you don't have a Google, Wordpress, or other username among those listed, you can enter a username in the dropdown box that reads "Name/URL." Put your name in the "Name" box, ignore the request for a URL, and you should be good to go.

I have a pretty firm policy of never censoring or deleting comments,so if your comment does not immediately appear, it probably means it is being held in the spam filter, which seems to lock in arbitrarily on some posts for reasons unknown. If you have submitted a comment and it doesn't immediately show up, give me a nudge at RockWaterman@gmail.com and I'll knock it loose. -Rock]

Monday, December 12, 2011

Hundreds of the greatest lights in the church have been excommunicated, not for any sin or proven wrongdoing, but for thinking outside the box.

Those who were persecuted became themselves persecutors after 1890 when the church compromised with the government to change it’s doctrine. From that point on those who studied, taught, and practiced the originating doctrines of the church were told to step in line with the new emphasis or suffer the consequences.

At first, the Church’s wrath seemed to focus mainly on those who practiced the controversial doctrine of plural marriage. Since that time the member seeking greater light is risking his membership if he does something like:

(1) Associate with those whose beliefs run contrary to the LDS church.

(2) Publish accurate information about some of the early history of the church that the Brethren want swept under the rug.

(3) Openly share views of some of the mysteries with other church members.

(4) Have any type of unauthorized study class in your home.

(5) State that the Prophet could be wrong on doctrine.

(6) Have unacceptable political views.

(7) Criticize the General Authorities.

The list does not stop here. The excommunication of my nephew and I was begun because they merely found our “thinking” was not in harmony. We were both obeying all the rules of the church, and I was teaching several classes and always taught orthodox doctrine. When the member is not allowed to have his own private controversial thoughts about the mysteries, then, indeed, the church has gone too far.

Will those who are led by the Spirit of God ever persecute their brethren? All those who have an ounce of the light of Christ in them must exclaim, NO! A thousand times no! The roll of the adversary is to belittle, tear down, stamp out with force, use the full arm of the law with no mercy, “wear out the Saints,” force them to deny what they believe in, make good appear evil and evil good, persecute, destroy!

Those on the left hand path cannot let their works be shown in the light of day, or their apparent righteousness will dissolve with the morning rays of the sun and finally the mid-day sun will scorch them in its strength.Yes, therefore, the leaders today do “exercise power and authority over the disciples of Jesus.” They have not yet filled up their measure as the ancient Nephites did, but they will soon be given their chance. There are numerous inspired teachings breaking forth outside the realm of the General Authorities, and the contrast between the light in the church and the light outside of the church is growing exponentially. The day is soon coming that this contrast will no longer be possible to sweep under the rug and ignore.

It will be as Jesus said, “For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household.” (Matt. 10:35-36) Then will the leaders say of the true followers as King Noah said of Abinadi, “He has said these things that he might stir up my people to anger one with another, and to raise contentions among my people.” (Mos. 11:28)

Are we going to be like King Noah and call “evil good and good evil, that put darkness for light and light for darkness”? (2 Nephi 15:20) Or are we going to be like the five wise virgins and have our lamps filled with the Holy Spirit and not lean on the arm of flesh?

The time is soon coming when every person who calls himself a Saint will have to choose between following the Holy Spirit or the arm of flesh; and if he chooses the latter, the spirit of the Lord will withdraw and that man will be easily confounded before the least of the followers of light. His only remedy then is to become as the Pharisees and Saducees and spiritually join the great and abominable church and try to stamp out the light; but these will dig a pit for themselves in which to fall in, and wonderful will be their punishment.

Do I rejoice to see these things at the doors? No. I respect the church and the people in it, and many of the leaders are trying to do right, but God wants us to glory in His work and not man’s, and we are told “every man’s work shall be made manifest; for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man’s work of what sort it is.” (I Cor. 3:13)

As time progressed, we find that the Nephites became more hardened and eventually became “even as the Jews at Jerusalem.” (Verse 31) After they reached this state, “there arose a people who were called the Nephites (the fundamental believers of the day) and they were true believers in Christ.” (Verse 36) After this separation of the righteous from the wicked, a frightful thing happened. “They did not dwindle in unbelief, but they did willfully rebel against the gospel of Christ.” (Verse 38) The seeds for a willful rebellion have been sown, but the plant is not yet clearly visible.

The groundwork has truly been set for a willful rebellion against the light, for the truth of new revelation will become so clear that the Saints will either willfully rebel, or join the light; and to join the light one must admit he has been deceived - which thing is hard for a man to do.

What happened after they willfully rebelled? Then they “began again to build up the secret oaths and combinations of Gadianton.” (Verse 42) Could that happen to us? Verily, yes. Did not the Lord say, “Beware of pride lest ye become as the Nephites of old”? (D&C 38:39)

Isn’t that a far cry from that often-thundered statement from the pulpit: “the Church will never fall!”? My dear brother, it can fall. Be as Paul, and let the scales drop from your eyes. Do as the Laodiceans were commanded and anoint thine eyes with eye salve that thou mayest see.” (Rev. 3:18) “Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked.” (Rev. 3:17)

To the Church the Lord said, “Inasmuch as ye do it not [keep the commandments], it shall be taken, even that which ye have received.” (D&C 43:10)

“Be faithful in keeping my commandments lest judgments come upon you, and your faith fail you, and your enemies triumph over you.” (D&C 136:42) It doesn’t sound like the Lord has an overabundance of confidence in the church, does it? Why should He? After all, hasn’t He watched Israel fail generation after generation? Even God does not force men to do right.

Why did Joseph warn that the Lord may take away the Church’s “talent, and give it to those who have no talent, and shall prevent them from ever obtaining a place of refuge, or an inheritance upon the land of Zion”? (DHC 2:48)

Who are those that “have no talent”? The Book of Mormon tells us clearly, but before we quote, we must clarify the meaning of the word Gentile as used in the book. Most LDS believe that the Gentiles prophesied of are those who will not join the Church in the last days, but is this the case? The Nephites used the word in its purest sense, as did the Bible writers, for the Greek word for Gentiles is Ethnos which means “foreigner.” Thus when the Nephites wrote of the Gentiles, they were speaking of the foreign peoples who would eventually possess the land, and the foreign peoples who would possess the Book of Mormon and the fullness of the gospel.

Those who would say other than this must either deny or rewrite the scriptures, for how do you explain the following: “Now these words, O Lord, we have spoken before thee, concerning the revelations and commandments which thou hast given unto us, who are identified with the Gentiles.” (D&C 109:60)

Who are identified with the Gentiles? Who received the “revelations and commandments”? The LDS people, of course.

Does not the title page of the Book of Mormon make clear who the Lord meant by “Gentile”? We are told it was written “to Jew and Gentile” and that it was “to come forth in due time by way of the Gentile -the interpretation thereof by the gift of God.”

Was Joseph Smith, by whom the book came forth, a Gentile? He was. Were the people who assisted him also Gentiles? Yes. The scriptures do not lie. We are clearly told that the Book of Mormon, which contains the truth and the word of God – “is my word to the Gentile, that soon it may go to the Jew, of whom the Lamanites are a remnant.” (D&C 19:27)

Who is the Lord speaking of when He talks about “those who embrace my gospel among the Gentiles”? (D&C 42:39) You really have to be desperate to say that applies to the non-Mormons. The Lord even tells us clearly that He calls the “heathen nations,” or the gentiles, the house of Joseph.” (D&C 90:10)

For more clarity, we quote: “Wherefore, it is wisdom that the land should be purchased by the saints, and also every tract lying westward, even unto the line running directly between Jew and Gentile. (D&C 57:4)We are also told “that the seed of this people (the Lamanites) may more fully believe this gospel, which shall go forth unto them from the Gentiles.” (Mormon 5:15) Also the Gentiles “have care for the house of Israel.” (Mormon 5:10) Here we are told clearly as word can be that the Gentiles will take the gospel to the Lamanites. Do you see any non-Mormons doing this? How can anyone deny that the LDS people are the Gentiles prophesied in the Book of Mormon?

Nephi gives us more confirmation. He says, “Then shall the fullness of the gospel of the Messiah come unto the Gentiles and from the Gentiles unto the remnant of our seed.” (I Nephi 15:13)

We see clearly then that the prophets in the Book of Mormon spoke not only to the inhabitants, as a whole, who would possess this land, but more particularly those who would receive and read the Book of Mormon. Why would the prophets waste energy in warning the “Gentiles” who would not even be reading the book? Why do we fool ourselves in thinking that the admonitions to the Gentiles are for the non-Mormon who doesn’t know they exist?

And what type of warning did the prophets give to the “Gentiles” who would possess the Book of Mormon? Moroni sums up the matter thus:

“And this [The Book of Mormon] cometh unto you, O ye Gentiles, that ye may know the decrees of God - that ye may repent, and not continue in your iniquities until the fullness come, that ye may not bring down the fullness of the wrath of God upon you as the inhabitants of the land have hitherto done.” (Ether 2:11)

Now, we can pass the buck and say that Moroni’s warning pertains to all those sinful non-Mormons, but who has received the warning through the Book of Mormon? Therefore who has the responsibility? The answer is obvious. Who does the Lord condemn for the great destructions in the Book of Mormon days? Wasn’t it those who possessed the gospel? It was.

“Wherefore, O ye gentiles, it is wisdom in God that these things should be shown unto you, that thereby ye may repent of your sins, and suffer not these murderous combinations shall get above you, which are built up to get power and gain - and the work, yea, even the work of destruction come upon you, yea even the sword of the justice of the Eternal God shall fall upon you, TO YOUR OVERTHROW if ye suffer these things to be.” (Ether 8:23)

When Mormon compiled the Book of Mormon, he had hundreds of times more records than we now have and had to be quite selective about what to include. What criteria did he use for his selection? He (as well as his son) tried to include words that would be of benefit to the Gentiles who would receive the book. He knew that the Gentiles would suffer the same pitfalls as his people except they be given a warning; so he compiled the whole Book of Mormon around the idea of warning the Gentiles by showing them what had happened to his people so we could avoid the same mistakes.

In the above two quotes Moroni summarizes the basic purpose of the book for the Gentiles. Why then do we bury our heads in the sand and exclaim that the Gentiles are the non-Mormons who do not have the slightest idea of what is in the book? Is God such a fool that not one intended person should hear His warning?

I’m sure it is a great comfort for many who tell themselves that the following scripture applies to the non Mormons: “Therefore, wo be unto the Gentiles if it so be that they harden their hearts against the Lamb of God. For the time cometh, saith the Lamb of God, that I will work a great and marvelous work among the children of men; a work which shall be everlasting, either on one hand or the other - either to the convincing of them unto peace and eternal life, or unto the deliverance of them to the hardness of their hearts and the blindness of their minds unto their being brought down into captivity, and also into destruction, both TEMPORALLY and spiritually, according to the captivity of the devil, of which I have spoken.” (I Nephi 14:6-7)

Here is another scripture that many like to think applies to the non- Mormons:

“And now, we behold the decrees of God concerning this land, that it is a land of promise; and whatsoever nation shall possess it shall serve God, or they shall be swept off when the fullness of His wrath shall come upon them. And the fullness of His wrath cometh upon them when they are ripened in iniquity. For behold, this is a land which is choice above all other lands; wherefore he that doth possess it shall serve God or shall be swept off; for it is the everlasting decree of God. And it is not until the fullness of iniquity among the children of the land, that they are swept off. And this [the Book of Mormon] cometh unto you, O ye Gentiles [obviously referring to those who have the book], that YE MAY KNOW the decrees of God - that ye may repent, and not continue in iniquities until the fullness come, that ye may not bring down the fullness of the wrath of God upon you as the inhabitants of the land have hitherto done.” (Ether 2:9-11)

Thus the responsibility for preserving freedom in this land is supposed to rest on the shoulders of the Mormon Elders, for they are the ones who have received the book - they are the ones that must serve the God of the land. Did not Joseph Smith say that the Constitution of this country would hang as it were on a single thread, and if it were saved at all it would be done by the Mormon Elders?

What are the Elders doing to save the Constitution?

Is it enough to advise members to get involved and elect good men to office? Is that not the same advice that is given out to all people in all democratic countries everywhere? Do you know anyone who says he voted for the man who he believed to be the worst candidate? Such advice is no sign of wisdom, for all people from the greatest to the least already believe it.

Well did Isaiah prophesy: “His watchmen are blind, they are ignorant, they are all dumb dogs, they cannot bark.” (Isa. 56:10) This is strong language, but it is not mine. Is it not true that authorities today cannot bark or sound forth a clear warning? President Benson tried to get involved in preserving our freedoms a few years ago, but received much criticism and had to withdraw from the scene before he could let out a good bark or two. Thus all of our leaders leave politics alone and do not bark, but sit back and watch our freedoms deteriorate while declaring that Zion is prospering as never before.

But behold, a shaking is coming on the house of God, and they that dwell securely shall become very unsettled, and men’s hearts will fail them.

[A note from Rock about leaving comments: Many readers have posted as "Anonymous" even though they don't wish to, only because they see no other option. If you don't have a Google, Wordpress, or other username among those listed, you can enter a username in the dropdown box that reads "Name/URL." Put your name in the "Name" box, ignore the request for a URL, and you should be good to go.

I have a pretty firm policy of never censoring or deleting comments,so if your comment does not immediately appear, it probably means it is being held in the spam filter, which seems to lock in arbitrarily on some posts for reasons unknown. If you have submitted a comment and it doesn't immediately show up, give me a nudge at RockWaterman@gmail.com and I'll knock it loose. -Rock]

Hundreds of the greatest lights in the church have been excommunicated, not for any sin or proven wrongdoing, but for thinking outside the box.

Those who were persecuted became themselves persecutors after 1890 when the church compromised with the government to change it’s doctrine. From that point on those who studied, taught, and practiced the originating doctrines of the church were told to step in line with the new emphasis or suffer the consequences.

At first, the Church’s wrath seemed to focus mainly on those who practiced the controversial doctrine of plural marriage. Since that time the member seeking greater light is risking his membership if he does something like:

(1) Associate with those whose beliefs run contrary to the LDS church.

(2) Publish accurate information about some of the early history of the church that the Brethren want swept under the rug.

(3) Openly share views of some of the mysteries with other church members.

(4) Have any type of unauthorized study class in your home.

(5) State that the Prophet could be wrong on doctrine.

(6) Have unacceptable political views.

(7) Criticize the General Authorities.

The list does not stop here. The excommunication of my nephew and I was begun because they merely found our “thinking” was not in harmony. We were both obeying all the rules of the church, and I was teaching several classes and always taught orthodox doctrine. When the member is not allowed to have his own private controversial thoughts about the mysteries, then, indeed, the church has gone too far.

Will those who are led by the Spirit of God ever persecute their brethren? All those who have an ounce of the light of Christ in them must exclaim, NO! A thousand times no! The roll of the adversary is to belittle, tear down, stamp out with force, use the full arm of the law with no mercy, “wear out the Saints,” force them to deny what they believe in, make good appear evil and evil good, persecute, destroy!

Those on the left hand path cannot let their works be shown in the light of day, or their apparent righteousness will dissolve with the morning rays of the sun and finally the mid-day sun will scorch them in its strength.
Yes, therefore, the leaders today do “exercise power and authority over the disciples of Jesus.” They have not yet filled up their measure as the ancient Nephites did, but they will soon be given their chance. There are numerous inspired teachings breaking forth outside the realm of the General Authorities, and the contrast between the light in the church and the light outside of the church is growing exponentially. The day is soon coming that this contrast will no longer be possible to sweep under the rug and ignore.

It will be as Jesus said, “For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household.” (Matt. 10:35-36) Then will the leaders say of the true followers as King Noah said of Abinadi, “He has said these things that he might stir up my people to anger one with another, and to raise contentions among my people.” (Mos. 11:28)

Are we going to be like King Noah and call “evil good and good evil, that put darkness for light and light for darkness”? (2 Nephi 15:20) Or are we going to be like the five wise virgins and have our lamps filled with the Holy Spirit and not lean on the arm of flesh?

The time is soon coming when every person who calls himself a Saint will have to choose between following the Holy Spirit or the arm of flesh; and if he chooses the latter, the spirit of the Lord will withdraw and that man will be easily confounded before the least of the followers of light. His only remedy then is to become as the Pharisees and Saducees and spiritually join the great and abominable church and try to stamp out the light; but these will dig a pit for themselves in which to fall in, and wonderful will be their punishment.

Do I rejoice to see these things at the doors? No. I respect the church and the people in it, and many of the leaders are trying to do right, but God wants us to glory in His work and not man’s, and we are told “every man’s work shall be made manifest; for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man’s work of what sort it is.” (I Cor. 3:13)

As time progressed, we find that the Nephites became more hardened and eventually became “even as the Jews at Jerusalem.” (Verse 31) After they reached this state, “there arose a people who were called the Nephites (the fundamental believers of the day) and they were true believers in Christ.” (Verse 36) After this separation of the righteous from the wicked, a frightful thing happened. “They did not dwindle in unbelief, but they did willfully rebel against the gospel of Christ.” (Verse 38) The seeds for a willful rebellion have been sown, but the plant is not yet clearly visible.

The groundwork has truly been set for a willful rebellion against the light, for the truth of new revelation will become so clear that the Saints will either willfully rebel, or join the light; and to join the light one must admit he has been deceived - which thing is hard for a man to do.

What happened after they willfully rebelled? Then they “began again to build up the secret oaths and combinations of Gadianton.” (Verse 42) Could that happen to us? Verily, yes. Did not the Lord say, “Beware of pride lest ye become as the Nephites of old”? (D&C 38:39)

Isn’t that a far cry from that often-thundered statement from the pulpit: “the Church will never fall!”? My dear brother, it can fall. Be as Paul, and let the scales drop from your eyes. Do as the Laodiceans were commanded and anoint thine eyes with eye salve that thou mayest see.” (Rev. 3:18) “Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked.” (Rev. 3:17)

To the Church the Lord said, “Inasmuch as ye do it not [keep the commandments], it shall be taken, even that which ye have received.” (D&C 43:10)

“Be faithful in keeping my commandments lest judgments come upon you, and your faith fail you, and your enemies triumph over you.” (D&C 136:42) It doesn’t sound like the Lord has an overabundance of confidence in the church, does it? Why should He? After all, hasn’t He watched Israel fail generation after generation? Even God does not force men to do right.

Why did Joseph warn that the Lord may take away the Church’s “talent, and give it to those who have no talent, and shall prevent them from ever obtaining a place of refuge, or an inheritance upon the land of Zion”? (DHC 2:48)

Who are those that “have no talent”? The Book of Mormon tells us clearly, but before we quote, we must clarify the meaning of the word Gentile as used in the book. Most LDS believe that the Gentiles prophesied of are those who will not join the Church in the last days, but is this the case? The Nephites used the word in its purest sense, as did the Bible writers, for the Greek word for Gentiles is Ethnos which means “foreigner.” Thus when the Nephites wrote of the Gentiles, they were speaking of the foreign peoples who would eventually possess the land, and the foreign peoples who would possess the Book of Mormon and the fullness of the gospel.

Those who would say other than this must either deny or rewrite the scriptures, for how do you explain the following: “Now these words, O Lord, we have spoken before thee, concerning the revelations and commandments which thou hast given unto us, who are identified with the Gentiles.” (D&C 109:60)

Who are identified with the Gentiles? Who received the “revelations and commandments”? The LDS people, of course.

Does not the title page of the Book of Mormon make clear who the Lord meant by “Gentile”? We are told it was written “to Jew and Gentile” and that it was “to come forth in due time by way of the Gentile -the interpretation thereof by the gift of God.”

Was Joseph Smith, by whom the book came forth, a Gentile? He was. Were the people who assisted him also Gentiles? Yes. The scriptures do not lie. We are clearly told that the Book of Mormon, which contains the truth and the word of God – “is my word to the Gentile, that soon it may go to the Jew, of whom the Lamanites are a remnant.” (D&C 19:27)

Who is the Lord speaking of when He talks about “those who embrace my gospel among the Gentiles”? (D&C 42:39) You really have to be desperate to say that applies to the non-Mormons. The Lord even tells us clearly that He calls the “heathen nations,” or the gentiles, the house of Joseph.” (D&C 90:10)

For more clarity, we quote: “Wherefore, it is wisdom that the land should be purchased by the saints, and also every tract lying westward, even unto the line running directly between Jew and Gentile. (D&C 57:4)
We are also told “that the seed of this people (the Lamanites) may more fully believe this gospel, which shall go forth unto them from the Gentiles.” (Mormon 5:15) Also the Gentiles “have care for the house of Israel.” (Mormon 5:10) Here we are told clearly as word can be that the Gentiles will take the gospel to the Lamanites. Do you see any non-Mormons doing this? How can anyone deny that the LDS people are the Gentiles prophesied in the Book of Mormon?

Nephi gives us more confirmation. He says, “Then shall the fullness of the gospel of the Messiah come unto the Gentiles and from the Gentiles unto the remnant of our seed.” (I Nephi 15:13)

We see clearly then that the prophets in the Book of Mormon spoke not only to the inhabitants, as a whole, who would possess this land, but more particularly those who would receive and read the Book of Mormon. Why would the prophets waste energy in warning the “Gentiles” who would not even be reading the book? Why do we fool ourselves in thinking that the admonitions to the Gentiles are for the non-Mormon who doesn’t know they exist?

And what type of warning did the prophets give to the “Gentiles” who would possess the Book of Mormon? Moroni sums up the matter thus:

“And this [The Book of Mormon] cometh unto you, O ye Gentiles, that ye may know the decrees of God - that ye may repent, and not continue in your iniquities until the fullness come, that ye may not bring down the fullness of the wrath of God upon you as the inhabitants of the land have hitherto done.” (Ether 2:11)

Now, we can pass the buck and say that Moroni’s warning pertains to all those sinful non-Mormons, but who has received the warning through the Book of Mormon? Therefore who has the responsibility? The answer is obvious. Who does the Lord condemn for the great destructions in the Book of Mormon days? Wasn’t it those who possessed the gospel? It was.

“Wherefore, O ye gentiles, it is wisdom in God that these things should be shown unto you, that thereby ye may repent of your sins, and suffer not these murderous combinations shall get above you, which are built up to get power and gain - and the work, yea, even the work of destruction come upon you, yea even the sword of the justice of the Eternal God shall fall upon you, TO YOUR OVERTHROW if ye suffer these things to be.” (Ether 8:23)

When Mormon compiled the Book of Mormon, he had hundreds of times more records than we now have and had to be quite selective about what to include. What criteria did he use for his selection? He (as well as his son) tried to include words that would be of benefit to the Gentiles who would receive the book. He knew that the Gentiles would suffer the same pitfalls as his people except they be given a warning; so he compiled the whole Book of Mormon around the idea of warning the Gentiles by showing them what had happened to his people so we could avoid the same mistakes.

In the above two quotes Moroni summarizes the basic purpose of the book for the Gentiles. Why then do we bury our heads in the sand and exclaim that the Gentiles are the non-Mormons who do not have the slightest idea of what is in the book? Is God such a fool that not one intended person should hear His warning?

I’m sure it is a great comfort for many who tell themselves that the following scripture applies to the non Mormons: “Therefore, wo be unto the Gentiles if it so be that they harden their hearts against the Lamb of God. For the time cometh, saith the Lamb of God, that I will work a great and marvelous work among the children of men; a work which shall be everlasting, either on one hand or the other - either to the convincing of them unto peace and eternal life, or unto the deliverance of them to the hardness of their hearts and the blindness of their minds unto their being brought down into captivity, and also into destruction, both TEMPORALLY and spiritually, according to the captivity of the devil, of which I have spoken.” (I Nephi 14:6-7)

Here is another scripture that many like to think applies to the non- Mormons:

“And now, we behold the decrees of God concerning this land, that it is a land of promise; and whatsoever nation shall possess it shall serve God, or they shall be swept off when the fullness of His wrath shall come upon them. And the fullness of His wrath cometh upon them when they are ripened in iniquity. For behold, this is a land which is choice above all other lands; wherefore he that doth possess it shall serve God or shall be swept off; for it is the everlasting decree of God. And it is not until the fullness of iniquity among the children of the land, that they are swept off. And this [the Book of Mormon] cometh unto you, O ye Gentiles [obviously referring to those who have the book], that YE MAY KNOW the decrees of God - that ye may repent, and not continue in iniquities until the fullness come, that ye may not bring down the fullness of the wrath of God upon you as the inhabitants of the land have hitherto done.” (Ether 2:9-11)

Thus the responsibility for preserving freedom in this land is supposed to rest on the shoulders of the Mormon Elders, for they are the ones who have received the book - they are the ones that must serve the God of the land. Did not Joseph Smith say that the Constitution of this country would hang as it were on a single thread, and if it were saved at all it would be done by the Mormon Elders?

What are the Elders doing to save the Constitution?

Is it enough to advise members to get involved and elect good men to office? Is that not the same advice that is given out to all people in all democratic countries everywhere? Do you know anyone who says he voted for the man who he believed to be the worst candidate? Such advice is no sign of wisdom, for all people from the greatest to the least already believe it.

Well did Isaiah prophesy: “His watchmen are blind, they are ignorant, they are all dumb dogs, they cannot bark.” (Isa. 56:10) This is strong language, but it is not mine. Is it not true that authorities today cannot bark or sound forth a clear warning? President Benson tried to get involved in preserving our freedoms a few years ago, but received much criticism and had to withdraw from the scene before he could let out a good bark or two. Thus all of our leaders leave politics alone and do not bark, but sit back and watch our freedoms deteriorate while declaring that Zion is prospering as never before.

But behold, a shaking is coming on the house of God, and they that dwell securely shall become very unsettled, and men’s hearts will fail them.

[A note from Rock about leaving comments: Many readers have posted as "Anonymous" even though they don't wish to, only because they see no other option. If you don't have a Google, Wordpress, or other username among those listed, you can enter a username in the dropdown box that reads "Name/URL." Put your name in the "Name" box, ignore the request for a URL, and you should be good to go.

I have a pretty firm policy of never censoring or deleting comments,so if your comment does not immediately appear, it probably means it is being held in the spam filter, which seems to lock in arbitrarily on some posts for reasons unknown. If you have submitted a comment and it doesn't immediately show up, give me a nudge at RockWaterman@gmail.com and I'll knock it loose. -Rock]